“The Demise of Evolution” — not.

We’ve heard ID proponents and Creationists talking about “the imminent demise of evolution” for years. In fact, it’s been going on for more than 100 years. “Imminent demise” has been a theme since before Darwin. Back then, it was used against the old-earth theory that the earth’s landscapes were a result of evolution and natural forces, not one God-given, supernatural, brief flood. Deniers soon switched over to claiming the imminent death of evolution, but they waited their whole lifetimes while evolutionary theory went from strength to strength.

Answers in Science has a nice, long compilation of these claims, dating back to 1825. Far from being predictive, they are rhetorical rallying cries for the faithful young-earthers and evolution-deniers. Read The Demise of Evolution” — the longest running falsehood in creationism“.

4 Responses to ““The Demise of Evolution” — not.”

  1. Michael Says:

    I’m not quite sure where you got the idea that creationists and intelligent design proponents are advocating “imminent demise of evolution.” I believe the phrase has to do with the “demise of evolution” because there is more evidence now of a designer than there was way back in 1825…

  2. freidenker85 Says:

    Michael, a cursory glance at the link provided would have shown you exactly where the author “got the idea that creationists and intelligent design proponents are advocating imminent demise of evolution”. Creationists (and IDC’ers, which is the same thing, only with lab coats sans labwork) have been writing eulogies to evolution for centuries. Guess what, it didn’t happen, and the fact that it’s still happening is simply pathetic.

  3. monado Says:

    Michael, what evidence of a designer? “Irreducible complexity” was busted in 1919, “front-end loading” would require ridiculous stability of unused genes, and supernatural guidance has no mechanism. You were all keen on a mechanism for nutrition- health research. What’s the evidence for “Poof! Goddidit!”?

  4. freidenker85 Says:

    Monado, you can never fully bust the IC argument because the IC argument is synonymous with saying “I don’t know, hence designed”. You can’t bust it because it’s not, in fact, an argument. Unsurprisingly, you cannot base a claim on ignorance, it would simply mean nothing, other than exposing the claimer to be dissonant for some reason.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: